On 01/26/2013 03:20 AM, Mark Tinguely wrote:
> On 01/25/13 00:19, Jeff Liu wrote:
>> On 01/25/2013 05:39 AM, Mark Tinguely wrote:
>>>> On 01/24/13 05:10, Jeff Liu wrote:
>>>>>> Refine the existing reservations routines with xfs_calc_buf_res() in xfs_trans.c.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jie Liu<jeff.liu@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> fs/xfs/xfs_trans.c | 238 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------------
>>>>>> 1 file changed, 111 insertions(+), 127 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /*
>>>>>> @@ -148,18 +145,18 @@ xfs_calc_itruncate_reservation(
>>>>>> struct xfs_mount *mp)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> return XFS_DQUOT_LOGRES(mp) +
>>>>>> - MAX((mp->m_sb.sb_inodesize +
>>>>>> - XFS_FSB_TO_B(mp, XFS_BM_MAXLEVELS(mp, XFS_DATA_FORK) + 1) +
>>>>>> - 128 * (2 + XFS_BM_MAXLEVELS(mp, XFS_DATA_FORK))),
>>>>>> - (4 * mp->m_sb.sb_sectsize +
>>>>>> - 4 * mp->m_sb.sb_sectsize +
>>>>>> - mp->m_sb.sb_sectsize +
>>>>>> - XFS_ALLOCFREE_LOG_RES(mp, 4) +
>>>>>> - 128 * (9 + XFS_ALLOCFREE_LOG_COUNT(mp, 4)) +
>>>>>> - 128 * 5 +
>>>>>> - XFS_ALLOCFREE_LOG_RES(mp, 1) +
>>>>>> - 128 * (2 + XFS_IALLOC_BLOCKS(mp) + mp->m_in_maxlevels +
>>>>>> - XFS_ALLOCFREE_LOG_COUNT(mp, 1))));
>>>>>> + MAX((xfs_calc_buf_res(1, mp->m_sb.sb_inodesize) +
>>>>>> + xfs_calc_buf_res(XFS_BM_MAXLEVELS(mp, XFS_DATA_FORK) + 1,
>>>>>> + XFS_FSB_TO_B(mp, 1))),
>>>>>> + (xfs_calc_buf_res(9, mp->m_sb.sb_sectsize) +
>>>>>> + xfs_calc_buf_res(XFS_ALLOCFREE_LOG_COUNT(mp, 4),
>>>>>> + XFS_FSB_TO_B(mp, 1)) +
>>>>>> + xfs_calc_buf_res(5, 0) +
>>>>>> + xfs_calc_buf_res(XFS_ALLOCFREE_LOG_COUNT(mp, 1),
>>>>>> + XFS_FSB_TO_B(mp, 1)) +
>>>>>> + xfs_calc_buf_res(2 + XFS_IALLOC_BLOCKS(mp) +
>>>>>> + mp->m_in_maxlevels,
>>>>>> + XFS_FSB_TO_B(mp, 0))));
>>>> ^^^^
>>>> I see the (2 + XFS_IALLOC_BLOCKS(mp) + mp->m_in_maxlevel)
>>>> headers in the original code, but I still don't see data.
>> XFS_FSB_TO_B(mp, 0) == 0, so it only calculates the headers out without the data part.
>>
>> But maybe it's better to replace XFS_FSB_TO_B(mp, 0) with 0 directly.
>>
>
>
> I did verify all the routines in the patch are the same as before. They
> test the same too. I must have had a bad test file before -
> XFS_FSB_TO_B(mp, 0) is obviously 0. I would prefer 0 rather than
> XFS_FSB_TO_B(mp, 0).
>
> Looks like the user space bits need to be refactored:
> http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2012-12/msg00108.html
> http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2012-12/msg00109.html
Sure, I'll post the user part later.
Thanks,
-Jeff
>
>
> Reviewed-by: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@xxxxxxx>
>
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
>
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
